Diagnostic Accuracy of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Ultrasonography Rules in Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Ovarian Masses with Histopathology as Gold Standard
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-3.12664Keywords:
Diagnostic Accuracy, Histopathology, IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules, Ovarian MassesAbstract
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of International ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) simple USG rules for diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses taking histopathology as gold standard.
Study Design: Cross Sectional Validation study.
Place and Duration of Study: Department of Radiology, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Aug 22 to Feb 23.
Methodology: A total of 135 women with ovarian mass were included in the study. Preoperative transvaginal ultrasound examination was performed in all included patients. Histopathologic diagnosis of the surgical specimen was used as the reference standard for definite diagnosis of the adnexal masses. Malignant ovarian masses were noted as per operational definition from Internation ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) and histopathology.
Results: IOTA diagnosed 39(28.9%) patients while histopathology diagnosed 38(28.1%) patients with malignant ovarian masses. IOTA has shown sensitivity of 86.8%, specificity 93.8% and diagnostic accuracy by 91.9%, PPV 84.6% and NPV was 94.8% in diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.
Conclusion: International ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) simple ultrasound rules were highly sensitive and specific in predicting ovarian malignancy preoperatively.
Downloads
References
1. Arora N, Talhouk A, McAlpine JN, Law MR, Hanley GE. Long-term mortality among women with epithelial ovarian cancer: a population-based study in British Columbia, Canada. BMC Cancer 2018; 18(1): 1039.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4970-9
2. Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(4): 284-296
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21456
3. Momenimovahed Z, Tiznobaik A, Taheri S, Salehiniya H. Ovarian cancer in the world: epidemiology and risk factors. Int J Womens Health 2019; 11: 287-299.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S197604
4. Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(4): 284-296. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21456
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70(1): 7-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590
6. Rosati A, Gueli Alletti S, Capozzi VA. Role of ultrasound in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: a review of the literature. Gland Surg 2020; 9(4): 1092-1101.
https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-20-357
7. Lee SJ, Oh HR, Na S, Hwang HS, Lee SM. Ultrasonographic ovarian mass scoring system for predicting malignancy in pregnant women with ovarian mass. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2022; 65(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.21212
8. Garg S, Kaur A, Mohi JK, Sibia PK, Kaur N. Evaluation of IOTA simple ultrasound rules to distinguish benign and malignant ovarian tumours. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11(8): TC06-TC09.
https://doi.org//10.7860/JCDR/2017/26790.10353
9. Yoshida A, Derchain SF, Pitta DR, Crozatti N, Andrade L, da Silva RF, et al. Preoperative measurement of serum C-reactive protein: is it useful in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses? Int J Biol Markers 2017; 32(1): e83-e89.
https://doi.org/10.5301/jbm.5000226
10. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 31(6): 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5365
11. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6839
12. Fathallah K, Huchon C, Bats AS, Metzger U, Lefrere-Belda MA, Bensaid C, et al. External validation of simple ultrasound rules of Timmerman on 122 ovarian tumours. Gynaecol Obstet Fertil 2011; 399: 477–481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2011.05.007
13. Hartman CA, Juliato CRT, Sarian LO, Toledo MC, Jales RM, Morais SS, et al. Ultrasound criteria and CA 125 as predictive variables of ovarian cancer in women with adnexal tumours. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 40: 360–366.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11201
14. Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J, Johnson S, Stalder C, Husicka R, et al. A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterise ovarian masses. Gynaecol Oncol 2013; 130(1): 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15854
15. Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, Graupera B, Auba M, Ajossa S, et al. IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 42: 467–471.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12485
16. Nunes N, Yazbek J, Ambler G, Hoo W, Naftalin J, Jurkovic D, et al. Prospective evaluation of the IOTA logistic regression model LR2 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 40(3): 355–359.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11088
17. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6839
18. Gareeballah A, Gameraddin M, Alshoabi SA, Alsaedi A, Elzaki M, Alsharif W, et al. The diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis: Simple Rules fordiagnosing ovarian tumors—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2025; 14: 1474930.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Komal Ahmed Khan, Uzma Nisar, Javed Anwar, Abdul Latif Khattak, Sana Aziz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
